Mr. Speaker, by refusing to ask the solicitor general for his resignation the Prime Minister is setting a dangerous precedent.

It means that there is a new rule for solicitors general. It means that confidential investigations under his care are fair game and open for public discussion and debate, and even prejudgment in public fora.

To restore public confidence in the position of the solicitor general, the highest lawmaker in the land, will the Prime Minister do the right thing and ask for his resignation today?

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that there was no discussion at all, according to the member for Palliser, about Airbus.

The hon. members have written questions. They are not quick enough to correct them. They have to read them again. I am telling them not to refer to Airbus. According to the member for Palliser there was absolutely no discussion of Airbus during that—

Mr. Speaker, in his letter, Mr. Toole not only confirms that the topic of APEC was indeed discussed by the Solicitor General last Thursday on the plane, he also states that he did not interpret the words of the Solicitor General as prejudicial to the RCMP inquiry.

Does the Prime Minister realize that the Solicitor General's alibi is nothing more than a letter from a friend, who interpreted what he heard as a good little Liberal, and that it therefore does not have much substance to it?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that an inquiry has been under way since Monday.

All we are asking, and all the government wants—and the House of Commons as well, I hope—is for the commission to look at the matter, hear witnesses describe what occurred in Vancouver that November afternoon, and report to the government, which will act accordingly.

At this time, however, Parliament should let the commission do its job, instead of speculating about hearsay.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister would like the investigation to focus on what happened between the protestors and the RCMP. But what we would like to know is what the Prime Minister did, and what his Solicitor General had to say on the plane.

Does the Prime Minister not think that Mr. Toole's letter, his presence in Ottawa yesterday, his statement that he had not been asked to do anything further, all smack of someone following orders, just like the situation between the RCMP and the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, there is no need for concern, because I want the truth to be known.

I owe no one any apologies for my favourable prejudice toward the RCMP. They did an excellent job at the G-7 summit in Halifax. Prior to APEC, we had visits by the President of the United States and the Premier of China, with no problems whatsoever. For that reason, I had confidence in the RCMP in connection with the important meeting in Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, at 10 a.m. yesterday, the Solicitor General rose in the House of Commons and made a statement explaining his position, which was confirmed by the lawyer with whom he had had a conversation.

To me, that is good enough. As for the notes allegedly made, are they accurate or not? When we are having a private conversation, we do not expect the people around us to eavesdrop.

I thought we had rules in this House requiring members to respect each other—

Mr. Speaker, the only thing missing in the Prime Minister's answer is the fact that a Solicitor General is supposed to have enough common sense not to discuss his business on a plane.

I cannot blame the Prime Minister for wanting to defend his Solicitor General, who is his shield. Does the Prime Minister realize that there is not one single Canadian left who still has faith in the Solicitor General, his shield, and that he should boot him out?

He has been involved in every social issue brought before the House of Commons, including the disabled persons issue. He has traveled extensively to advance the cause of the most vulnerable in our society. That is why I have faith in the person currently holding the position of Solicitor General.

Mr. Speaker, I ask everyone to let the commission do its work. After that, everyone will know the truth.

When we hosted summit participants from 18 countries, we had a mechanism in place to ensure their safety and the peaceful conduct of proceedings, which is standard practice the world over. The Government of Canada and the Prime Minister had a duty to ensure that things went well in Canada. On the occasion of other summits and meetings held in Canada, the police did their work very well—

Mr. Speaker, in the matter of acting honourably it has been established by the member across the way that Airbus was never even mentioned, but this hon. member resurrects the idea as if it was discussed. I think the request from hon. members hits back in the other direction.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised Canada a government of integrity, yet he has delivered a solicitor general who talked openly about sensitive government matters in public.

The solicitor general took an oath to respect the rule of law and he violated that oath on an airline chat about APEC and numerous businessmen and politicians connected with Airbus.

Who is reliable? Who is credible? Who is discreet? The solicitor general general strikes out on all three of those. Will the Prime Minister now show some integrity, some leadership and ask for the solicitor general's resignation?